X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-help-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-help AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <4F6B1276.80507@laserlinc.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:52:22 -0400 From: Joshua Lansford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geda-help AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-help] Segfault in gnetlist References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-help AT delorie DOT com Hi Tom, Was looking though the list and saw your request and it doesn't look like you have a response. I haven't taken a detailed look at your schematic, but I have found that gnetlist will segfault whenever there is an empty property in the schematic or one of the symbols. It made me panic the first time I hit it. Now fixing the problem is routine. This grep command like this should find it, and then you can remove it with vim or another text editor. grep -n =\\s*$ *.sch ~Joshua On 03/16/2012 08:54 PM, Thomas Oldbury wrote: > Trying to load a schematic into xgsch2pcb results in a blank PCB file. > > Traced it down to a segfault here: > > $ gnetlist -q -g gsch2pcb -o FreeBox.new.pcb -m gnet-gsch2pcb-tmp.scm > power_main.sch > Segmentation fault > > I can delete a small section of my schematic and it goes away > (generally around the lower optocoupler area); however, if I replace > it and delete another section around the same area, it also goes away! > Also, it seems (although it may just be me) that deleting parts > individually doesn't work... you have to delete all at once?! This has > made trying to find an individually faulty part hard, so I think it's > probably some combination of factors that I'm unlucky enough to trip over. > > I have attached my schematic in case it helps, it uses a few custom > symbols but the bug should still show up. > > Is there a way for me to track down what part is causing the > problem... never had this before with gEDA. > > Thanks, > Tom